Signalling for an Inglenook...

[Nickey Line]

Hi all; as some of you may know I have been intermittantly building an Inglenook (workbench topic here) and thoughts have recently turned to signalling.

I'd like to fully signal it with ground signals and one standard stop signal on the exit.

I've been playing with Modratec's free download, SigScribe (great fun, by the way), with a view to purchasing one of their kits in the future.

Here's a screen shot of the signalling diagram (permission has been given by Modratec)...

 

 

The plan is to expand the Inglenook at some stage; provision has been made to add further boards at either end.

The two lower sidings would become a loop, possibly for passenger traffic, hence the FPL on the first turnout.

Should there be a FPL on the second turnout?

I realise there should probably be a trap between the two turnouts if provision is made for passenger traffic, but there just wasn't room.

If I stick with freight only, could I dispense with the FPL altogether?

Also, I'm not sure about the order of the levers in the frame, how do they look? I suspect I've got them back to front?

Expert opinions gratefully received...

[Edwin_m]

If passenger-carrying trains use 7 in the facing direction then it would need a FPL. However with left hand running in the loop they might only pass over it in the trailing direction.

 

No FPLs needed at all if it is freight only, though they might still exist on a former passenger route.

 

Also any of 8, 9 or 10 approached by passenger-carrying trains should be replaced by a full-size signal. You'd be OK with a disc for 2/3/4 as passenger-carrying trains would always pass this in the clear position having been signalled by a full-size signal off-scene.

 

Could just put a trap on the loop beyond 10 if passenger-carrying trains just used the lower two tracks? If only the bottom track was used by passenger-carrying trains you could convert 7 to a double slip, which would not only provide trapping but also allow a short headshunt so shunting would be clear of the passenger line.

 

Note that I have referred to "passenger-carrying" trains, as empty stock follows the same rules as goods.

 

This information is, I think, generic, but any more detail would probably need you to declare an era and company/location.

[TheSignalEngineer]

Signal numbering should run in the same direction on the ground as the orientation of levers in the frame. If your layout were the signalbox diagram above the levers as shown, then signal 1 should be to the left and 10 to the right. Obviously there would have to be more signals off-plan to the right if the triple disc is provided, the relevant disc being cleared before the main arm(s) reading up to it are cleared.

Generally full arms should be provided for running direction moves whether passenger or goods. A disc is perfectly OK reading up to the starting signal when leaving a siding.

An indication of the traffic type, period and location would help to nail down the actual signalling required, including what moves required FPLs to be bolted.

[The Stationmaster]

. You'd be OK with a disc for 2/3/4 as passenger-carrying trains would always pass this in the clear position having been signalled by a full-size signal off-scene.

 

 

That's a very modern answer Edwin (in fact I suspect it might be a bit too modern for semaphore signalling altho' it is ok for colour light practice), normally the semaphore running signal should be at the point toe running signal in such a situation.

 

 

 

[PWSlack]

 

....Expert opinions gratefully received...

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/user/6662-beast66606/

[Edwin_m]

That's a very modern answer Edwin (in fact I suspect it might be a bit too modern for semaphore signalling altho' it is ok for colour light practice), normally the semaphore running signal should be at the point toe running signal in such a situation.

 

Yes you're right of course. Full sized arm for any of the tracks passenger-carrying trains can run towards and small arms or discs, or indeed a single disc for the others.

[beast66606]

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/user/6662-beast66606/

 

Very amusing - nice to be appreciated B), probably the most accurate answer you've given thus far

 

I will now report my own post - and yours

 

You will notice that I don't feel the need to jump in and post inaccurate information when it's already been answered by others.

[Nickey Line]

Ok, many thanks to you all, plenty to take in there. I'll probably stick to freight only for now; modifying the layout for passenger operation is going to be too much work for now I think.

I'll remove the FPL and re-arrange the levers later (currently at work!)

 

Incidentally, I'm currently using an 08 or a Jinty as motive power, with a mixture of short wheelbase wagons, so as for period/location, think early/mid sixties, Midland region.

[beast66606]

I would draw the signalling plan before you try and lock it

[Nickey Line]

I would draw the signalling plan before you try and lock it

Sorry, not sure what you mean! With SigScribe you have to complete and protect the signalling plan before the locking can be calculated. I must be missing something...?

[beast66606]

Sorry, not sure what you mean! With SigScribe you have to complete and protect the signalling plan before the locking can be calculated. I must be missing something...?

 

I meant draw the plan by hand and get input before you try and use Sigscribe - it should mean your signalling (and lever numbering) is correct before you try and use SigScribe to lock it, I use paint for these tasks.

[Nickey Line]

Right, now I follow! Ta.

Actually it's just as easy to draw it up in SigScribe, it only takes a moment to unprotect and re-configure.

And using it is still a novelty for me...

[The Stationmaster]

It would be interesting to knock up the sketch and do a locking chart 'by hand' and then compare the result with Sigscribe - mind you the locking is very straightforwad in this example (as it's all 'basic' locking rules stuff) so it wouldn't really be putting Sigscribe/Modtaratec to the test.

But it would be interesting to learn if (on the original numbering) 1 locks 2,3, & 4?

[Nickey Line]

It would be interesting to knock up the sketch and do a locking chart 'by hand' and then compare the result with Sigscribe - mind you the locking is very straightforwad in this example (as it's all 'basic' locking rules stuff) so it wouldn't really be putting Sigscribe/Modtaratec to the test.

But it would be interesting to learn if (on the original numbering) 1 locks 2,3, & 4?

Can't confirm until I get home, but from memory I believe it does.

[jamie92208]

Without getting into the debate about what locks what I would add that I am a satisfied user of Modratec. Sigscribe is just part of the design process for ordering a kit from \Modratec. Usually the process consists of an exchange of emails with Harold, who runs it. He is very k nowledgable on signalling rules and usually suggests modifications if he thinks that things should be done differently. Eventually after an email exchange the final design is agreed on before the ordering process starts. I think I was onto version 4 before we agreed on the frame for Long Preston which is now going to be modified for use on Green Ayre with new locking.

 

Jamie

[Nickey Line]

Can't confirm until I get home, but from memory I believe it does.

Just goes to show that you can't trust your memory (see below)... well I can't anyway.

 

Version two of signal diagram, showing unlocked ground signals with exit signal off...

 

 

..otherwise hopefully all is in order?

 

Without getting into the debate about what locks what I would add that I am a satisfied user of Modratec. Sigscribe is just part of the design process for ordering a kit from \Modratec. Usually the process consists of an exchange of emails with Harold, who runs it. He is very k nowledgable on signalling rules and usually suggests modifications if he thinks that things should be done differently. Eventually after an email exchange the final design is agreed on before the ordering process starts. I think I was onto version 4 before we agreed on the frame for Long Preston which is now going to be modified for use on Green Ayre with new locking.

 

Jamie

 

That's good to know, thanks. But it could be some time before I place an order, I've got plenty of other things on the go at the moment...

 

Hmmm, something odd has happened to the attachment...

[The Stationmaster]

Just goes to show that you can't trust your memory (see below)... well I can't anyway.

 

Version two of signal diagram, showing unlocked ground signals with exit signal off...

 

 

..otherwise hopefully all is in order?

 

 

Not entirely so - there is a lot of locking seemingly missing from No. 9 as it should lock 6, 7, and 8 (and they will lock 9 as they are conflicting signals), and 9 should also lock 4 and 5 both ways (to prevent points being moved under a train, after the disc signal reading from a siding has been replaced to danger). These are both basic interlocking principles so in my view should be provided if you are going to bother with locking at all

[Nickey Line]

Not entirely so - there is a lot of locking seemingly missing from No. 9 as it should lock 6, 7, and 8 (and they will lock 9 as they are conflicting signals), and 9 should also lock 4 and 5 both ways (to prevent points being moved under a train, after the disc signal reading from a siding has been replaced to danger). These are both basic interlocking principles so in my view should be provided if you are going to bother with locking at all

 

I think I will have to do some more work on setting up routes - perhaps I've made an error here.

Locking between the ground signals and turnouts seems to work fine.

I'll have to have another look at it tonight, and maybe ask for advice from Modratec if I can't crack it.

 

In the meantime, thanks to everyone for their input; much appreciated.

Shows how much there is to learn with even such a simple scheme.

[TheSignalEngineer]

The thread demonstrates how much of a black art mechanical interlocking could be. To the old stagers designing to fit on the fewest bars was a matter of pride.

It is easy to miss the items as pointed out in Stationmaster's post. I have seen several attempts at writing locking where duplicated locking has been provided because the people doing it do not understand the way it works.

I am not familiar with Sigscribe, but in the case of a layout like this I would not even entertain using a computer programme as it would take longer to input what was required than to write the locking table by hand.

[Nickey Line]

The thread demonstrates how much of a black art mechanical interlocking could be. To the old stagers designing to fit on the fewest bars was a matter of pride.

It is easy to miss the items as pointed out in Stationmaster's post. I have seen several attempts at writing locking where duplicated locking has been provided because the people doing it do not understand the way it works.

I am not familiar with Sigscribe, but in the case of a layout like this I would not even entertain using a computer programme as it would take longer to input what was required than to write the locking table by hand.

 

SigScribe works out the locking for you, once the design is complete and routes defined, which does not take long; in this case it's only a few minutes' work. I'm sure it's in the route definition where I've missed something. I'm sure that for the experienced then this would be easy to write by hand; having studied a number of locking diagrams I am a long way from being able to acheive this so quickly! I'm sure it would take me ages; perhaps I should have a go anyway...

[The Stationmaster]

I'm not sure if applying a route locking approach to semaphore signalling is the best way to tackle the job (or indeed applying a route locking approach to any signalling if the basic locking principles aren't first understood). I don't know how Sigscribe works but if it does use a route locking approach it should surely 'tick up' that if a route is set from signal 9 (as you have set) then a route from anyone of 6, 7, or 8 would automatically be locked as they are opposing routes - perhaps it doesn't recognise the position of signals but only routes in advance of them and nothing in rear? I'm sure you'll find out.

The basic locking principles are simple and, I think, fairly easily understood and it all builds up from there. The 'black art' comes in mainly from doing it with the minimum of bars but also to a limited extent with the peculiarities of how different Drawing Offices tended to do some of the more unusual things in their own way. But that is going a long way from the basics and they are, perhaps, the bit to grasp first.

[Nickey Line]

The basic locking principles are simple and, I think, fairly easily understood... ...the basics and they are, perhaps, the bit to grasp first.

 

This looks like a good place to start...

[micknich2003]

Dear All, for what it is worth, attached a very quick doodle of a locking table. I have followed your numbers as per your layout plan and not the pretty picture of the levers. Also, I presume No2 disc reads three ways. I have not worked it out, but I reckon with 5 bars per channel, as per No16 and 17 apparatus etc, the lot will fit in one channel. Just realised, I have in error ommited the "Back to Back" locking between No1 Signal and No2 Disc. 1 Whatever my sketch will give you all something else to discuss. Best Wishes, Mick.

[Nickey Line]

Hi Mick,

No.2 disc on the original diagram or No.6 disc on the revised one, is a stacked triple, as shown in the green panel on the right of the diagram.

This info might add a little extra to the locking table?

[The Stationmaster]

This looks like a good place to start...

 

 

Not bad although it does get mixed up with the mechanism of locking and lever frames rather than just looking at the basic principles - but they are in there and JH does a good job of explanation as usual.